I have to agree with Birdwing on this one. I think that if we are expected to handle ourselves as adults here, then we should be trusted to be articulate and to use these words sparingly. I personally tend to curse...well probably once a week in real life and even less online. If I'm using an explative then there's usually a reason behind it.

No swearing? Half of my posts will be [deleted]. (I'm not a fan of word filters. XD It seems that a majority of the active members here don't either, and a majority of the active members are mature adults, mature enough to use the words in moderation, and mature enough to not take them personally.)

People are forgetting that Apositive is hosted on somebody's servers, either a free webhost or a paid webhost. Such companies usually have Terms of Service, and the Terms of Service nearly always give the forum admin two choices: (1) have an "adult" board restricting membership to over-18s, with ID verification and similar hassle; or (2) forbid profanity. The second option is almost always chosen, and if a member violates the ToS and the admin does nothing about it, the forum could get shut down. Yes, people will say that there's only a small chance of the forum being shut down because webhosts are usually too understaffed to police their fora unless someone makes a complaint, but why risk it?

For my part, I don't mind profanity when it's in context, but I can completely understand why Nancy is OBLIGED to forbid it here.

Besides, since all the complainers so far have been AVEN-worhsippers, let me ask them one question: does AVEN permit profanity? Of course not. So quit being disingenuous.

And as for the reason you propose michaels then why didn't Nancy just say that when I asked her at the start of this thread, instead of just billing it as a personal preference of hers? Seems like you've just become a Nancy-worshiper

Last edited by fridayoak on Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So ... what is it about the F word that people find so appealing? Have language skills deteriorated to such a degree in the last couple of generations that people are either unwilling or unable to express themselves in any other way?

Why would anybody want to have their profanity preserved for the ages on a message board which is intended, first and foremost, to present asexuals and asexuality in a positive fashion? My hope is (was?) that the posts on Apositive would be more informed and better articulated than what is generally found on AVEN, with some very notable exceptions, of course, and that this site could eventually become known as a place for researchers to look for thoughtful, in-depth discourse.

One of the the most thought-provoking substitutions for the F word that I have heard is the phrase "gently caress". 'Gotta say, I'm very tempted ...

Profanity has its legitimate place in real-life speech, especially when you hit your thumb with a hammer, but I would have no use whatsoever for any allegedly educational publication that contained slang instead of proper language.

Edit: Wow - two new posts since I started this and then got distracted by real-life stuff.A couple of quick comments before the phone rings again: I'm not "obliged" to do anything here. It is, in a sense, nothing more than my personal preference, but that is based on the purpose that I have envisioned for this website. Another edit: You all would have to laugh at me, but while I was trying to type that first edit the phone DID, in fact, ring - and I cursed it out with some things that would have made a sailor blush!

It is censorship. People's posts have been altered from what they've written, with any word containing "fuck" removed and "[expletive deleted]" put in its place. What exactly should one call that, but censorship?

Nancy's made several sweeping generalisations about the use of the word "fuck", and I've challenged her to back her claims that it's all just a low-class way of avoiding having a competent vocabulary with examples from Apositive, sufficient to show that such use is in fact "cluttering up" the forum, thus justifying the use of a blanket "fuck"-filter.

I'm pretty confident no such case could be made, but Nancy is quite within her rights to implement the filter without justifying her actions to anyone. It would be interesting to see a justification using specific posts from Apositive attempted, though.

I think i should reply for the last time on this given I set the thread going

I havn't been posting on Apositive for a while and when i have it's been now a bit here and a bit there rather than the flurry when i rejoined

I did feel somewhat patrionised when it was suggested that because you use basic language then you maybe of a lower intellect. Some of us through lifes travels have been raised in a way that certianly does NOT reduce intelligence but has seen a rather more simpler and basic way of expression and therefore language

After that comment on swearers being of a lower mentality I did feel sad, angry and just got to the point of you know what..fuckit

when the only allowed way of expression is via those who have a oxford concise dictionary firmly wedged up thier arse crack..it doesn't become interesting..it becomes elitist..negating the many in favour of the few and incredibly boring

I use "f*ck sometimes..almost always in relation to a topic and incredibly rarely as an insult to an individual but even that has been identified as a way that is not acceptable so for me feeling rather treated like I can't be trusted with a 4 letter word I've decided to call it a day on apositive

So I wish you all and your families well for christmas and the very best for the new years

Last edited by PiF on Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.

The way I see it: if Nancy doesn't want swear words in her living room, fair enough.

That doesn't mean there can't be valid uses of swear words in the topics that come up on apositive. It doesn't make people who swear less intelligent.

It just means: "please, not here".

Imagine you were a guest in someone's house. Would you feel patronised and insulted if swearing were off-limits there? If so you might have a problem even in my house; personally I'm ambivalent, but one of my housemates disapproves of swearing and I think would get upset if people tried it here.

To me it just seems like basic respect and courtesy to avoid the kind of language your host doesn't want on the premises.

Which doesn't mean to say I like the filter - I don't - but as far as I understand it, the software does not allow a reject-and-review at present.

(Aside: how did the f-word in Olivier's last post not get filtered? Is it because there are inverted commas either side?)

by explicitly defining the color for the "u" in the middle as being black, the filter didn't catch it. I assume the filter looks for specific strings (which is why doing something like placing a space in the middle of the word bypasses the filter), and by putting some code in the middle, it breaks up the string, even though the code doesn't show in the actual post.

Nancy if it is about showing asexuals in a positive light (as you say) then where are all the historical examples of uses of swear words on this site that show it in a negative light? Olivier did the search and there wasn't any. No-one would read the examples he searched and look unfavourably upon Apositive.

I think people are annoyed because of the patronising tone you are using with regards to framing people who swear (even just now and again) as less intelligent. You've made this point many times on this thread (despite what flegalwit says) and it comes across as quite offensive in my mind. You say in one of your posts that people on here are articulate enough to not use swear words, but I think people are saying they are articulate enough to use the odd swear word when it is necessary, and feel hurt that you don't trust them enough to do so.

Obviously it is your site but it seems just as Apositive was getting more vibrant again you've jeopordised it's future by putting people's backs up with this silly rule change.

flergalwit wrote:(Aside: how did the f-word in Olivier's last post not get filtered? Is it because there are inverted commas either side?)

Oliver used a rather clever (albeit time consuming trick):

It's not that time consuming. And I wasn't trying to be provocative, I simply got very slightly annoyed with the inaccuracy of saying that the filter changed things when you type "f uck", because - plainly - it doesn't. I prefer to say what I mean than play "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean" games.

As for the living room, it's an understandable analogy, but an extremely poor one. Forums aren't really the private space of their owners. In the case of Apositive, one doesn't need an invitation from Nancy or Kæth to attend, nor even to know them at all, and most don't. What we have here is a privately-provided quasi-public space (much like a club) dedicated to the discussion of various aspects of human sexuality. Now, what do you think would happen if you opened a real life club (the Asexuality Institute, perhaps), and hosted a diverse bunch of people from all around the world for panel sessions to discuss aspects of human sexuality, but then new managers banned any derivative of the word "fuck", even redacting past session transcripts where people had been discussing whether fuckbuddies can be successfully used to separately meet one's sexual and emotional relationship needs, and so forth.

At best, that would come across as intrusive, but most likely it would come across as "typical asexual prudishness", regardless of whether it is driven by prudishness, or whether prudishness is typical to asexuals.

Again, Nancy, by saying you are introducing this rule to stop the forum being cluttered up by low-class, unimaginative speech where profanity is liberally used as a lazy emphasis word, you are solving a problem THAT DOES NOT EXIST, and doing collateral damage to the intelligent, mature discourse you claim to favour in the process, no less.

Olivier wrote:I prefer to say what I mean than play "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you know what I mean" games.

This here is a major pet peeve of mine. I may have raised this point already in this thread (too lazy to look) but I find myself quite annoyed when for whatever reason people can't say a particular word when discussing the nature of the word itself. Discussions of the nature of a word are typically of a fairly mature nature, but being forced to use various euphemisms for the word while discussing it seems to me to infantilize the discussion.

In any case, this thread seems to be turning to nothing but reiterations of the same points, so unless something new comes up that I feel I need to comment on, I'm out.

Though I will close with the opening of Greydon Square's song "The N-Word" (which is admittedly about a different word:

"The thing is, the word is "nigger." There is no such thing as the N-word. It disturbs me to see our newscasters...get on the TV and not be able to say the n-word, I mean, not be able to say the word "nigger." How can we get past the word when we can't even say it?"

Now, what do you think would happen if you opened a real life club (the Asexuality Institute, perhaps), and hosted a diverse bunch of people from all around the world for panel sessions to discuss aspects of human sexuality, but then new managers banned any derivative of the word "f*ck", even redacting past session transcripts where people had been discussing whether fuckbuddies can be successfully used to separately meet one's sexual and emotional relationship needs, and so forth.

As I have said time and time again, I have no problems with spoken profanity, so that part of your example is meaningless.BUT, let's say that this hypothetical Asexual Institute were to publish a book discussing asexuality, with the intention that the book would be used to inform the general public as well as researchers and the media.

THAT is the context wherein I find profanity to be highly objectionable, and that is the way that I would like for the content of Apositive to ultimately be used.

As for the one, specific term "f*ckbuddies", I find the fact that so many feel the F word best describes those who willingly engage in gratuitous sex to be interesting. There is a very strong negative connotation to the type of sex which is described by the F word. One who "F"s is always the penetrator, hence the aggressor, (figuratively - not necessarily literally), and one who is "F"ed is, well .... "F"ed. Or even "F"ed up!Making love is a mutual act, but "F"ing is a selfish one.

Now, for those of you who think that I am being prudish by wanting to enforce some basic, journalistic standards, let me ask you a question. The answer that you give will tell me just how much you really understand about my motives for censoring a grand total of 3 words. (Two of those are absolutely non-negotiable, by the way, so don't even bother asking.)

The question is this:What do you think that I might hope to accomplish by changing the word filter so that it replaces the F word with the phrase "gently caress"?

Now, what do you think would happen if you opened a real life club (the Asexuality Institute, perhaps), and hosted a diverse bunch of people from all around the world for panel sessions to discuss aspects of human sexuality, but then new managers banned any derivative of the word "fuck", even redacting past session transcripts where people had been discussing whether fuckbuddies can be successfully used to separately meet one's sexual and emotional relationship needs, and so forth.

As I have said time and time again, I have no problems with spoken profanity, so that part of your example is meaningless.

Is a transcript of a conversation that different to a discussion on an internet forum? On forums, I use conversational English, and feel like I'm participating in a discussion that is merely a written one due to the nature of the medium. Your mileage may vary, but I suspect my experience is a common one.

KAGU143 wrote:BUT, let's say that this hypothetical Asexual Institute were to publish a book discussing asexuality, with the intention that the book would be used to inform the general public as well as researchers and the media.

THAT is the context wherein I find profanity to be highly objectionable, and that is the way that I would like for the content of Apositive to ultimately be used.

When I post on Apositive, as I said above, I definitely do not feel I am writing for inclusion in a book. Even if such a thing were to happen, then there's no reason editorial standards appropriate to publication as a book could not be applied at that time (something that would have to happen in any case, for reasons that go far beyond occasional uses of swearing.)

KAGU143 wrote:As for the one, specific term "f*ckbuddies", I find the fact that so many feel the F word best describes those who willingly engage in gratuitous sex to be interesting. There is a very strong negative connotation to the type of sex which is described by the F word. One who "F"s is always the penetrator, hence the aggressor, (figuratively - not necessarily literally), and one who is "F"ed is, well .... "F"ed. Or even "F"ed up!Making love is a mutual act, but "F"ing is a selfish one.

Really, you read all that into the word fuckbuddies? To me it's just a descriptor of a certain type of sexual relationship. It doesn't connote anything negative to me, and I don't feel that "fuck" implies aggression, gratuitous attitudes to sex, or penetration. Sure, it can be used in those ways, but such usages are determined by context, not by anything inherent in the word "fuck". Again, and I'm sure I'm beginning to sound like a broken record on this topic, while what you say can be accurately levelled against some uses of the word in the wider world, I don't think you're accurately describing the use of "fuck" and its derivatives here on Apositive, and note yet again that when you make complaints against the use of this particular word on Apositive, you do not accompany those complaints with any evidence that gratuitous use of the word "fuck" is anything more than an extraordinarily rare occurence here. I've posted what I think is a close to exhaustive list of redactions made by your filter, and I think your objections apply to only a small percentage of what was a small number of instances in the first place. If you think that it's a bigger problem on Apositive, or that I've cherry-picked my list somehow, then feel free to give examples of what you see as the problem you're trying to solve.

KAGU143 wrote:Now, for those of you who think that I am being prudish by wanting to enforce some basic, journalistic standards, let me ask you a question. The answer that you give will tell me just how much you really understand about my motives for censoring a grand total of 3 words. (Two of those are absolutely non-negotiable, by the way, so don't even bother asking.)

The question is this:What do you think that I might hope to accomplish by changing the word filter so that it replaces the F word with the phrase "gently caress"?

If you did that at this point, I'd assume you did it to assert your proprietorial rights. If you'd chosen that course originally, I'd assume you were really a 14-year-old hiding behind an older internet persona, as any adult would know that imposing such an immature redaction would make this place look more like a elementary school playground than a collection of scholarly works for possible publication.

Anyway, the filter is very blunt, so you would be changing "fucking" and "fuckbuddy" to "gently caress" as well, so whatever your aims, one of your effects would be to introduce grammatical errors into people's posts. Regardless of your motivations to change the filter to redact words with "gently caress", when people read old threads and came across redactions of "mistress/fuckbuddy relationships" to "mistress/gently caress relationships" I imagine their first reaction would be confusion, and if they worked out that it was a peurile, nonsensical redaction, that confusion would be replaced by annoyance. Those familiar with internet forums might then go into their profile to turn filtering off, and on finding that this was not available (or worse, available but ignored), they would probably be more annoyed.

That pedantry aside, I'm willing to accept your previous claims that you want Apositive to be a space for mature discussion, where lazy profanity is discouraged to the point of absence, and considered, well-constructed language is used in its place. I don't think the filter will do that for you nearly as well as simply asking would have. Seriously, if you had posted that you, as new proprietor, did not want to see the word "fuck" on your site, then I would be fine with that.

Anyway, I'm finding it seriously dull making the same point only to see the substance of it ignored, so unless you want to actually address my points of the appropriateness of publishing people's past writing in a form they did not write, or provide evidence that this filtering is doing more good than harm by giving examples of posts that you think were clearly out of line (and in quantities that suggest case-by-case moderator action would be too onerous), then I'm out of this discussion.

I'm kind of trying to stay out of this - I don't agree with the filter, but I do think that it's Nancy's forum, so if that's what she wants, that's fine.

But I'll chime in on the use of the word in the context of sex, at the risk of being judged negatively. I'm not a fan of the term "making love." I could never use that within my relationship, just like I could never call someone my lover. It makes me cringe! And it makes me think of Will Ferrell & Rachel Dratch. However, when having sex, my partner & I regularly refer to it as sex or f*cking. It's not a negative thing, no matter what anyone thinks. If I were to tell my partner "Let's make love"... good lord. But "Let's f*ck"? Much better. Just our personal preference - & neither of us is very selfish during the act. I think it spices things up a bit more.

I hope someone who gives a shit will want to take over this place when the time comes, because I don't like it here any more. It has become nothing more than a boring, unrewarding chore that I have to deal with every single goddamned day.

I am not one to talk about the degeneration of the language. I'll steal an observation from a much wiser person than myself (thanks, boa): people have been howling about the degeneration of the language since before Chauser threw The Canterbury Tales before the Normans.

I'm not going to suggest that to be "correct" one should speak, say, French, or revert to any antiquated form of language that has ceased to exist for years.

Given the correct inspiration, I can use language that would strip the paint off of an aircraft carrier.

I can. That isn't to say that I do. There are two different ways to comport oneself: a public way, and a private one. If, in private, I choose to indulge myself in a colorful metaphor or two, that's my business (and, of necessity, the business of those who choose to associate with me). Come into my place of business, however? I dare you to try to get me to cuss in front of one of my paying customers -- the people on whom I rely for an income and whose morals I don't know. Here's all I know: I sell tasty baked goods. The people who come into my shop might be nuns, might be devil worshipers, might believe in the flying spaghetti monster. I don't care. I don't want to offend any of them. Therefore, I quite reasonably refrain from certain modes of communication when dealing with the public.

With me so far?

Now, insofar as I have been paying the bills around this place for some time, I am in the Apositive business, too. I have been largely silent around here, leaving Nancy to handle the day to day operation of things. This isn't to say that I have no connection to Apositive other than financial. Far from it. The history of this site has never truly been discussed. I wasn't this site's first owner. But, I was the one who gave it a focus: the concept of conflating asexuality with positivity, both in personal experience and attitude towards sexual activity is mine. I feel very strongly about it.

Perhaps "business" isn't quite the right term for Apositive. Realistically, it is more of a hobby. And, as such, this isn't the most cash-depleting hobby I've ever had, by any means, but it isn't cheap. And, not to put too fine a point on it, I rather expect a certain return for my expenditure. I do not see Apostive as a kind of club. My bakery is more akin to that, and I run it daily for those who are willing to come in and pay me for my baking expertise, as any club owner would run the place based on the likings of his clientele. Apositive, on the other hand? I publish that. Anyone is free to post here, certainly, and on just about any subject they choose. Ideas are never unwelcome, here.

I've seen the term "censorship" thrown around this thread with wild abandon. This shows a basic lack of understanding between that term and the term "standards". The Seven Words You Can't Say on TV? That's censorship. By Federal edict, a network can't stay on the air if they use these (and, truth to tell) many other terms. Standards, on the other hand, are a different matter. Newspapers are legally free to use any kind of language they choose. When, however, was the last time you saw a great, big F-bomb above the fold of the New York Times, or indeed, anywhere in the Times? Heck, when was the last time you saw more than the most shameful innuendo in either the Post or the Daily Mail? These publications are free to f*eep*, s*eep*t on or p*pew*s off anyone they please. But, they choose not to. Why? Because it is against their standards.

I really do apologize if the standards of the publication that is Apositive runs counter to your own preferred usage of the language. Feel free to write what you'd like. We'll feel free to edit it how we'd like. We've always been very honest about this: there is no namby-pamby wringing of hands, here. If we see something we don't like, there is no committee, no court of reprieve. And, frankly, we're pretty damned lenient.

This discussion is pointless: this is our publication. We make the rules. To insist that we need to comport to your ideas or ideals? Honestly, why don't you get your own website? We are willing to let this idea fold if people aren't willing to accept the notion that -- old fashioned or not -- there are some words we'd rather not pay to display for the world to see. And, frankly, we've got every media outlet and publication on the planet on our side. You think that Rupert Murdoch doesn't swear like Slash after a three-day bender? Or even just like Slash? He does. When was the last time you heard that kind of thing on FoxNews? When was the last time you heard it on NPR? Or the BBC?

We're not Rolling Stone. We're not LoveLine. We're not a club. We're not meant to be.

Are we meant to be a community? Absolutely. We'd like to be a community without the potty mouth, though, please. "Potty mouth" defined as three words. Just three words. Are these three words a deal-breaker, meaning you cannot possibly express yourself as an adult without them? Really?

Three words. And the OED could break your toe if you dropped it from a foot. Less three words, this represents a double standard, rampant censorship or a nanny state?

You know what defines "acting like children" to me? Claiming that following rules shouldn't apply to you, when, clearly, they do. Them's the rules. Otherwise, we're pretty hands off. Mind, you're free to go to AVEN and get banned the first time you say [vagina] or [racial slur], without so much as a by your leave. Go right ahead. We prefer not to set such traps. Those are banned outright. And no one seems to think of those as being unreasonable. We've added one more. Just one. One, little word. And that's stepping over a line that you can't possibly think of a way around?

Don't get me wrong: I have heard an actual recording of Walter f'in' Cronkite reading what was (honestly and truly) Andy Roony's bit about "the most useful word in the English language". It exists. It is real. It is no urban legend. And it never aired on CBS. And you'll probably never hear it, ever. Because only friends were given a copy of that recording. And even today, it is kept a secret, shared only privately with those who would appreciate that voice saying those things. Because there were standards, and those who knew him respect that there still are.

Anything that happened or was posted before the day that we started footing the bills is irrelevant. Karl and Victoria had their standands. Ours is but one word greater.

Me? Not a prude. Stop by the house anytime. I'll prove it. (No, really.) My publication, however, asks that you curb yourself a little. And in doing so, you prove yourself to be an adult, rather than a petulant child. You can use whatever logical argument you'd like to convince me that the word is indispensable and perfectly fine. I'd agree with you. Privately, I use when it suits me. But, this is my dime, and it is public. And I don't want to add to the number of times the word is used in print. End of line.

As I said, Kæth, that's fine by me, I can express myself without it just fine.

But the reason the word "censorship" has been bandied about is because the certain posts, which were posted in accordance with the prevailing standards, were redacted by the filter. That is, they were published in a different form due to their content. Not edited, to preserve meaning while avoiding now-unacceptable words, but just left with gaps where the words used to be. I'm sorry that it upsets you to call that censorship, but I think you have to contort meaning to call the blacking out of words anything else.

Edited to add: I see that we are now in the twilight zone of "mistress/gently caress relationships". That's not NYT-like standards, that's acting like children. Sheesh. I'm off to edit some old posts, and then, you know, I think I'm off for a longer break from this childishness.

Firstly hi and thanks for your reply ... This will be my last post in apositive

I think what's been missed is that your side sees it as a right to say f u ck... The other sees it as a restriction on those who do act honestly and openly when they become involved but communicate in a different way

The Fu c k word isn't used often in here but when it is it is very much in context to the discussion. Also the implication that to express in such ways means a lower intellect .. I know certianly I took some personal offence too

This certianly gave the impression of elitism which did surprise me for a site such as this given many of us were desperately looking for an aven alternative. On one hand we say apositive is the more mature and less kiddified version of aven and in the next breath we have restrictions that do not enable the trust in those participating to use it and a restriction even the kiddy site does not gave

Forgive me if I'm wrong Kæth but it does seem overkill.. It's not about the one word honestly...it's about restricting those who sing from a different book

But as you said it's your site your rules and I will respect that and call it a day here

I wish you,Nancy the other users of apositive the very best for Christmas and hopefully a better new year

Last edited by PiF on Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I assume the "gently caress" thing is a joke and is temporary. (At least I hope so!)

Gah. This is all so silly. Because of what should really be a non-issue, we have lost contributors (PiF and Olivier) and made the site owner feel like coming here is a drag.

Suggestion (which no-one has to take seriously): change the filter replacement back to "[word deleted]" or something similar - with the square brackets - lock the thread, and PiF/Olivier: please don't leave; the site needs its contributors, and there are plenty of more interesting topics elsewhere.

Oy ...Well, when Kæth got home last night I was still in rather peeved state about this issue and you can all see what happened.I might change the word filters back to something else at some point, maybe, but I think Kæth specifically chose those substitutions to point out just how absurd this entire arguement really is. Humour is, after all, a very powerful weapon.The silly word filters will never be seen unless someone says something which triggers them, and that should not be happening.

There have been some good suggestions in this thread and I will try to address those as soon as I can, time permitting. In the case of editting the old posts ... well, I don't like doing that so long after the fact, but I will if I have to. I am deciding whether to edit the words or whether to go in and manually override the word censor myself. Possibly a combination of the two. Ideally, in a perfect world, the original posters would be around to do it, but I think that some of them are gone. As always, when I edit a post I will send a PM to the poster to tell them what I have done.

Censorship? Maybe.If you think that publication standards are a form of censorship then yes, that is the way that you are going to see it and I can't help that. If you would prefer a site where no words are forbidden (yet certain ones can, nevertheless, get you warned or banned!) then there is always AVEN. You can use language however you wish to over there, as long as you don't use it to express an unpopular opinion which might offend one or more of their members. They refer to the expression of unpopular opinions as trolling, and they will ban members for doing it. I saw it happen time and time again while I was there. They banned quite a few members who, in my opinion, were NOT trolls - their only faults were stubborness and a steadfast refusal to change their opinions. Three strikes, and they were out.

Apositive is different. This is NOT a "safe" place for everybody, and we can't or won't pretend to be. There is, quite simply, no such thing. Opinions will sometimes clash here, and threads will sometimes get heated. For the most part I will be standing back and letting it happen as long as it doesn't deteriorate into absolute mud-slinging, personal attacks, flaming or profanity. If or when threads become complete battlegrounds then I will probably intervene, but I won't be issuing any warnings.

Grownups can have drastically different opinions that are all, nonetheless, entirely valid. Some cases in point: Is there a need for the presence of profane language at Apositive? Kæth and I say "no" and although we accept the rights of others to disagree, we do pay the bills. Is there a need to restrict certain opinions or topics of discussion? Kæth and I say "no" to that as well. If we didn't then this topic would have been removed as soon as it was started.

Reading Kæth's post makes me think there is some sort of trans-atlantic culture clash going on here. You can swear as much as you like on the BBC and any other UK station after the watershed (9pm I think-you often get American stars expressing surprise when they are on chat shows here and are told they can say the f-word) and British papers have the f-word in, in context when necessary (which is what people are arguing should be the case here) so maybe that explains why the main complainers are British/Australian as there is more a culture of swearing here and why it seems strange and childish to have this rule on such a mature site.